Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: 1004/2009
    • Member State: Malta
    • Common Name:Edmund Barbara u Steve Barbara ezercenti l-kummerce taht l-isem Barbara Music Sh. v J. u M. Formosa
    • Decision type: Other
    • Decision date: 04/04/2011
    • Court: Tribunal ghal Talbiet Zghar (Court of first instance)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff:
    • Defendant:
    • Keywords:
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 2 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 1. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 4, 1.
  • Headnote
    No Headnotes available.
  • Facts
    Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of three instalments for the hire of a piano. Plaintiff explained that defendants had signed an agreement whereby they undertook to hire the use of piano with the possibility of purchasing the piano. Plaintiff explained that before signing the contract he explained the contents thereof to defendants in particular clause 7 thereof whereby if defendant decided to purchase the piano within 6 months the loan paid would be deducted from the price of the piano and the piano can be bought by instalments. However if the piano is bought within two years half the loan paid would be deducted from the value of the piano.
  • Legal issue
    The Tribunal held that this case related to the hire of a piano whereby one had the facility of also buying the piano. From the evidence submitted it resulted that defendants were happy to continue using the piano without actually buying it. It resulted that defendants never took any steps to terminate the agreement of hire and return the piano. The Tribunal noted that this was a case where both parties were fully aware of the applicable terms and conditions and that no one tricked anyone. Defendants in defence of their case were contesting on the basis of fairness the terms of the agreement. The Tribunal however questioned whether it is fair that one continued to use a product and when asked to pay refuses to do so. The Tribunal further noted that contrary to what was alleged there was no breach of articles 44 and 45 regulating the use of unfair terms and decided to up-hold the claims of plaintiffs.
  • Decision

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result